Study summary
Evaluation of standard field and laboratory methods to compare protection times of the topical repellents PMD and DEET
Colucci B, Müller P
- Study type
- Field Trial
- Year
- 2018
- Species tested
- Aedes aegypti
- Published in
- Scientific Reports 8:12578
- Evidence strength
- Well-supported evidence
How it was tested
Compared arm-in-cage laboratory protocol against semi-field protection-time measurements for 15% PMD and 15% DEET, tracking repellency hourly over six hours.
Summary
Head-to-head comparison of 15% PMD and 15% DEET using arm-in-cage laboratory tests (Aedes aegypti, Anopheles stephensi, Culex quinquefasciatus) and two field sites, with the same volunteers across all experiments.
Key findings
In the field, median complete-protection time was at least 6 hours for both 15% PMD and 15% DEET. In the arm-in-cage test DEET slightly outperformed PMD, suggesting the cage assay underestimates real-world efficacy where landing pressure is lower.
Limitations
Single 15% concentration; field sites limited to temperate Switzerland; small participant panel.